Difference between revisions of "Talk:FamilySearch Indexing: US, New England–Naturalization Index 1791-1906, Project Updates"

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
I think I remember seeing a slide in the presentation that used "Victoria" (no country or other clue to identify city/state/povince) as an example of Place of Birth that wouldn't be indexed because it could be too many places, ie a City, State/Province in more than one part of the world. I don't see this slide there now. Was it removed because Basic Guidelines for indexing Place say: "If unknown if the place recorded was a city, county, state, etc., put the locality in the smallest geographical division."? My interpretation of basic guidelines would be to put Victoria as a city in this case. I'm seeing a lot of confusing remarks on the facebook page. Maybe a note could be added to project updates as to why the slide was removed and to restate basic guidelines for indexing Place of Birth. An updated version of the Victoria slide could be shown as the example to illustrate that City would be the correct field.
+
'''Place of Birth:''' I think there was a slide in the presentation that used "Victoria" (no country or other clue to identify city/state/povince) as an example of Place of Birth that wouldn't be indexed because it could be too many places, ie a City, State/Province in more than one part of the world. I don't see this slide there now. Was it removed because Basic Guidelines for indexing Place are: "If unknown if the place recorded was a city, county, state, etc., put the locality in the smallest geographical division."? My interpretation of basic guidelines would be to put Victoria as a city in this case. I'm seeing a lot of confusing remarks on the facebook page. Maybe a note could be added to project updates as to why the slide was removed and to restate basic guidelines as stated above. An updated version of the Victoria slide could be shown as the example to illustrate that City would be the correct field.  
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
'''Naturalization Year, 2 digit dates''': In spite of restating Guidelines in Project Updates for recording 2 digit years when a 4 digit year is required, indexers and arbiters continue to assume the 4 digit year. I was hoping to upload an image as an example, but I can't see a way to do that here. On this card the Naturalization year is recorded as "5-6-13" (no date of birth or other clue to the full year). The arbitrator chose 1813. This could be a century off and mislead researchers if the actual date was 1913. The point is we don't know, so it should be indexed as "13". If I can send the image, maybe it might help to make a slide so a visual example can be added to the Project Update. 

Revision as of 16:27, 2 September 2011

Place of Birth: I think there was a slide in the presentation that used "Victoria" (no country or other clue to identify city/state/povince) as an example of Place of Birth that wouldn't be indexed because it could be too many places, ie a City, State/Province in more than one part of the world. I don't see this slide there now. Was it removed because Basic Guidelines for indexing Place are: "If unknown if the place recorded was a city, county, state, etc., put the locality in the smallest geographical division."? My interpretation of basic guidelines would be to put Victoria as a city in this case. I'm seeing a lot of confusing remarks on the facebook page. Maybe a note could be added to project updates as to why the slide was removed and to restate basic guidelines as stated above. An updated version of the Victoria slide could be shown as the example to illustrate that City would be the correct field.


Naturalization Year, 2 digit dates: In spite of restating Guidelines in Project Updates for recording 2 digit years when a 4 digit year is required, indexers and arbiters continue to assume the 4 digit year. I was hoping to upload an image as an example, but I can't see a way to do that here. On this card the Naturalization year is recorded as "5-6-13" (no date of birth or other clue to the full year). The arbitrator chose 1813. This could be a century off and mislead researchers if the actual date was 1913. The point is we don't know, so it should be indexed as "13". If I can send the image, maybe it might help to make a slide so a visual example can be added to the Project Update.